Coronavirus and football.

[swaledale]

Trumps travel ban is not an effective way of controlling the virus but its a typical political statement. Also banning sporting fixtures isn't either

Chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance said cancelling sporting events is not a "major way to tackle this epidemic".

"Of course there is a risk," he said. "But on average one person infects two or three others.

"You therefore have a very low probability of infecting a large number of people in a stadium, or a rather higher probability of infecting people very close to you, and that means most of the transmission tends to takes place with friends and colleagues in close environments, not in the big environments.

"It is true that any cancellations of things can have some effect (but) if you then get a displacement activity, when everyone congregates somewhere else, you may have perversely an increased risk, particularly in an indoors environment.

"So it doesn't mean you should at some point make the decision for the resilience point that has been discussed, but this is not a major way to tackle this epidemic.

"The major ways are to try and reduce and delay the transmission across households and people who have become infected and that why that is the concentration of the first actions."

But of course it "looks" as if major action is being taken, when the real facts are that the virus will spread anyway, most will suffer minor if any effects.


Meanwhile on average a round 17,000 die from flu each year (though it was under 2,000 in 18/19 and nearly 5 people die in road accidents each day (approx 1800 a year) but we dont report that on the news every night.

[ramAnag]

Trumps travel ban is not an effective way of controlling the virus but its a typical political statement. Also banning sporting fixtures isn't either

Chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance said cancelling sporting events is not a "major way to tackle this epidemic".

"Of course there is a risk," he said. "But on average one person infects two or three others.

"You therefore have a very low probability of infecting a large number of people in a stadium, or a rather higher probability of infecting people very close to you, and that means most of the transmission tends to takes place with friends and colleagues in close environments, not in the big environments.

"It is true that any cancellations of things can have some effect (but) if you then get a displacement activity, when everyone congregates somewhere else, you may have perversely an increased risk, particularly in an indoors environment.

"So it doesn't mean you should at some point make the decision for the resilience point that has been discussed, but this is not a major way to tackle this epidemic.

"The major ways are to try and reduce and delay the transmission across households and people who have become infected and that why that is the concentration of the first actions."

But of course it "looks" as if major action is being taken, when the real facts are that the virus will spread anyway, most will suffer minor if any effects.


Meanwhile on average a round 17,000 die from flu each year (though it was under 2,000 in 18/19 and nearly 5 people die in road accidents each day (approx 1800 a year) but we dont report that on the news every night.

Okay...Chris Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance are experts and to be taken notice of, but I just don’t get the logic.

On the one hand people are being told to self isolate immediately for seven days if they develop any symptoms, there is talk of possibly having to follow the lead of Italy, Ireland and Spain in closing all schools and universities, and advice to stay away from the old and at risk while at the same time becoming more caring, selfless and altruistic (not sure how those last two equate ).
All that suggests is, as we know, that the virus transmits very efficiently from person to person but for some reason huge gatherings of people aren’t apparently going to encourage that. How can that be?

The ‘on average one person infects two or three others’ is, imo, completely meaningless in this context. Norman Nomates who has his shopping delivered online and is devoid of a social life will infect no one and probably remain untouched, but for anyone who regularly uses public transport and visits the pub/cinema/theatre/major sporting event etc surely the risk is massively increased.

The cynic in me suspects they might even be quite happy for the old and the sick to die...they’re an expensive drain on resources after all and short of a major war it’s an effective means of population control...but, although at least sporting events have the advantage of being held in the open air, I just can’t understand how major gatherings aren’t inevitably going to help and speed up the spread of the virus.